Session 1 · The four moves of debate

Color and Shape

色法 — the safest possible subject, chosen on purpose
Before class: nothing required. No reading, no background — just show up curious.

Switch any time — every debate line on this page has both versions. Formal terms are what you'd meet in an actual monastery; plain English is how we'll practice today.

Part 1

The Idea

Imagine a detective who refuses to accept any claim unless it survives three tests: Is the evidence real? Does the evidence actually prove the conclusion? And if I accept this, what else am I now forced to accept? Tibetan monks have trained their minds with exactly this method for six hundred years — in front of other monks, out loud, in public, where every sloppy step gets caught immediately.

Their first lesson is deliberately boring: colors and shapes. Not because colors and shapes matter philosophically — they don't — but because they're the one subject nobody can get emotional about. You can't be attached to whether a shell is white. That makes it the perfect place to learn the grammar of debate before the debate is ever about something that matters to you.

Why start here, of all places
  • Low stakes, high precision. Nobody argues about the color of a conch shell — so all the energy goes into getting the logic exactly right.
  • The format outlasts the content. Once these four moves are automatic, monks spend the next twenty years pointing them at harder and harder questions — the mind, karma, and eventually the mistakes reasoning itself can make.
  • It's a skill, not a belief. You don't need to accept anything Buddhist to learn this. You're borrowing a training method, not a doctrine.
Part 2

Learn the MovesFour fixed replies — this is the whole grammar

In a debate, one person (the Challenger) pushes a claim. The other (the Defender) must respond with exactly one of these four moves — no vague hedging allowed.

"So…""It follows that…"
The Challenger opens a claim.Formal name: Consequence (thal 'gyur / 應成)
"That's not true.""The reason is not established."
The reason itself is false.Formal name: 因不成
"That doesn't prove it.""There is no pervasion."
The reason is true, but doesn't force the conclusion.Formal name: 不周遍
"Yes, I agree.""I accept it."
The reasoning holds. Accept it.Formal name: 承許

Most of the skill in this course lives in telling move 2 and move 3 apart — a false reason vs. a true reason that proves nothing. Watch for it in the example below.

Part 3

The ContentWhat we'll actually argue about today

Basic colors — these just are what they are:

white red yellow blue black

Combined colors — made from two basic colors together:

green = blue + yellow purple = red + blue orange = red + yellow
Part 4

Worked ExampleWatch the trap, then watch it get caught

Challenger
"Look at this shell. So, it has a color, because it is white." "It follows that the subject, this conch shell, is a colored thing, because it is white."
Opens with a claim that looks completely safe.
Defender
"Yes, I agree." "I accept it."
Correct — white is obviously a color. No trap here yet.
Challenger
"So, it is green, because it has a color." "It follows that the subject is green, because it is a colored thing."
The trap: "has a color" is true — but true of a thousand things that aren't green.
Defender
"That doesn't prove it!" "There is no pervasion."
Correct catch. "Having a color" doesn't force "being green" — the reason is true but toothless.
Part 5

PracticeYou call the reply — press to check yourself

1. "So, grass is blue, because it has a color."
"That doesn't prove it!""There is no pervasion." — "has a color" is true of grass, but doesn't force "blue." Same trap as the worked example.
2. "So, this shirt is green, because it is blue and yellow mixed together."
"Yes, I agree.""I accept it." — this time the reason genuinely forces the conclusion: blue + yellow mixed is the definition of green.
3. "So, this ball is red, because it is a banana."
"That's not true!""The reason is not established." — this is the other kind of bad move: the reason itself is false. A ball isn't a banana, so we never even get to talk about red.
Looking ahead

Session 2 — One and Many

Today's trap was "true reason, wrong conclusion." Next session points the same four moves at a harder question: what does it actually mean for two things to be "the same"? The answer turns out to matter a great deal once we get to how monks reason about the mind.

← Course overview Session 2 →